Is NASA about jobs, or actually accomplishing something?

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had a rare (and welcome) availability with Houston area media on Thursday, and while he generally stuck to talking points, citing the space agency’s rosy future, moments of frustration slipped through the cracks.

These slips are illuminating as they point out a central weakness and strength of NASA — its 10 centers spread across eight states.

The diversity of these centers, including sites in populous states like Texas, California, Florida and Ohio, ensures political clout for the agency in both houses of Congress. At the same time, NASA has to continually spread work around all of these centers and keep senators and representatives from the homes of each of the 10 happy.

Which is to say, first and foremost, saving jobs.

During his availability on Thursday, I asked Bolden about the dearth of planetary science flagship missions in the wake of Curiosity’s success on Mars. He talked about some upcoming missions and then, in the midst of that discussion, started talking about jobs.

Here’s what he said:

I always have to caution people, if your concern is jobs, which it is for all of us, and so you want to make sure that every center has something going that’s going to guarantee that every year we can do a new program or project that assures jobs, that’s nice. But we’ve also got to be accomplishing something that we can tell the American taxpayer “this is worth the money we’re spending.” The strategy that we have right now, the programs we have in science, aeronautics, technology development, human exploration, we feel is a balanced portfolio that provides support across the agency for all 10 centers, keeps our workforce vibrant and viable working on things they really know and the nation needs, so that’s where our focus is.

I believe when he’s talking about “people” in the first sentence, he’s talking about Congress. And he alludes to the inherent tension in all of this, namely that NASA has to keep work farmed out to each center, but still has to be seen accomplishing something.

This inherent tension between appeasing Congress and actually doing something also arose earlier during the news conference. During his opening remarks, Bolden urged Congress to agree to the president’s budget request for $821 million for commercial crew flights, saying a failure to do so would further delay development of private, American rockets and spacecraft to launch astronauts to the International Space Station.

He said:

I had to authorize writing a check for 450 million-some-odd dollars to Russia to extend the Soyuz contract to support the International Space Station for 2016 into 2017. That’s 450-million some-odd dollars that we could have been writing to American industry if we had an American capability to get our astronauts there right now. And that’s the last check I want to write to somebody outside the United States. You need to know when you talk to Congressional representatives, they need to understand how critically important it is to approve the President’s request for $821 million to develop commercial crew.

Why is Congress unlikely to do so, and why haven’t they fully funded the president’s budget requests for commercial crew in the past? It’s not because Congress is populated by Russophiles. It’s because congressional members from Texas and Alabama and elsewhere are protecting their centers, which might see slight budget cuts if commercial crew is fully funded. So part of the money needed to help develop commercial rockets and space capsules in past budgets has been siphoned off for programs at various NASA centers.

As a result, a few parochial interests win, but I’m not sure that’s best for America overall.

Anyway, in case anyone was disillusioned, let’s be clear that political support for NASA is largely about jobs. Same as it was back in 1977, if you believe Jimmy Carter. Most of the time, if a politician from a particular state supports a NASA program, it’s because that program provides a lot of jobs at the center in his or her state. There are some exceptions, of course. I’m a big fan of John Culberson’s desire to send a robotic probe to Europa, and that would have almost no benefit for Johnson Space Center.

The good news is that NASA still accomplishes stuff, just not as much as it could be doing if it weren’t mostly about jobs.

30 Responses

It’s certainly not about jobs at JSC. Thousands were laid off at the end of shuttle and the vast majority moved to other industries because there wasn’t anywhere else to go at JSC. Orion, commercial crew, etc., have limited budgets so unless you were already involved in those programs or ISS, you had to jump industries, which many have done successfully. It’s a beyotch of a drive from the Clear Lake area to the Energy corridor/Baker Hughes type jobs though…

How many civil servants were RIFed? I was working at MSFC on Constellation when thousands of private contractors supporting NASA were RIFed in 2010. I know of no civil servant that was RIFed. If you got a government job you have it made for life… It should be called white collar welfare. Oh and when times are a booming you can get a job in the private aerospace sector but with no guarantee for life. Be prepared to move. —G-pa Dave retired for good by Obama

It seems like the best thing for NASA would be to distance it from Congress by creating an advisory panel with long term goals and a firm fixed budget. This will never happen, of course, because it would require congress to cede a tiny bit of their power. In the meantime we’re held hostage to the budget process – which is never about NASA – and we drag on month after month with no idea what our goal is. I can tell you it is no fun working for congress.

Eric, I think you have it backwards. The Space Leadership Preservation Act looks like it would take away the one good bit of leadership NASA has and replace it with a committee mostly chosen by people with a conflict of interest. We don’t need continuity of leadership to ensure that programs are funded longer. We need more practical goals, shorter timescales, and a whole lot less funding diverted to politicians’ pet projects.

NASA is about inspiration – about challenge. Ironic that it is under scrutiny…not from you – but from many. NASA does have a return on investment (not Tang) that is measurable. It’s out there. But, to even question an agency with so little budget that does so much for the Nation – and for the world – is proposterous and it’s the problem facing every American. Many, simply do not know or recognize the value. NASA, by law, is not allowed to trumpet their own horn – how did this happen? We have astronauts spinning overhead at this very moment working on a water recycling project (and many other things) that could very well benefit all of humanity. We have rovers scouring the surface of Mars – countless satellites monitoring our own planet. The engineering learned from these missions more than makes up for the less than 1/2 of 1% of the overall Federal Budget. Did the Apollo program break the Country or make us better as a Nation? What Nation ever prospered by having a truly weak exploration/technology department? Begin thinking in these ways and you will see – not only is NASA being robbed of its opportunity to serve us – so are we all….

So it must be illegal for NASA to advertize it’s level of spending for each congressional district or the “a href=”http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/economics.html”> economic impact of the program. NASA’s Office of Public Affairs has the goal to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information to the media and general public concerning NASA activities and results.” That group of outlaws had a $50 million budget in FY 2012.

While the National Science Foundation 2012 budget was 7 billion dollars, NASA received $17.8 billion. Senator Tom Coburn (who proved he’s no fan of science) points out that only a third of NASA’s budget is spent on Space Operations and Aeronautics. Still, does the $6 billion spent on NASA missions pay better dividends than the $7 billion spent on NSF grants?

I’d like to see both NASA and NSF get more funding, but that’s not likely when Congress is looking everywhere for places to cut the budget. The research most likely to push America ahead in the next 50 years is not space related, so why make NASA a sacred cow?

Here’s the problem with NASA. It’s a government institution. They wait around and make their plans based on a HUGE handout annually while private companies such as Space X or even non-aerospace tech companies plan their activities based on a profit and growth plan.
If NASA had to EARN their way the positions may be fewer but they would be a heck of a lot more stable.
They don’t have a direction. They’re just sort of making stuff up to keep funded. A private company would have one or MORE definite endgames.
Space X has a goal to be the trucking industry of the sky. They know exactly what they are after and just about 1/3 of the way there.
When a private industry grows into success they can diversify and operate more than one goal simultaneously!

NASA just waits for the handout and then distributes it as if what they are doing is necessary. Now don’t get me wrong. NASA does a huge amount of basic research. Now THAT’S something private industry can’t do in this field because Basic research has unforeseen profits NOT in the present but somewhere down the line. It costs up front.

NASA SHOULD reduce and maintain the major research end while private industry can now run the routine stuff like hauling equipment and transportation.

NASA SHOULD reduce and maintain the major research end while private industry can now run the routine stuff like hauling equipment and transportation.

If you’ve been around in the industry for awhile, then you’ve heard that song before. Witness the fate of Space Services, Inc. of America, which started the world’s first commercial launch system back in 1981 before being closed down by Congress and NASA (which wanted to force all launches to go through them). And then there is the cautionary tale of MirCorp which tried to privatize the Mir space station only to run into a series of mysterious delays that led to Mir being de-orbited rather than preserved. Or we could look at the strange change in requirements that killed VentureStar.

The lesson is clear – if you want to start a successful space program, be prepared to fight with Congress (which wants to protect its pork) and NASA (which wants to protect its turf).

NASA is about high level research & engineering jobs for geniuses. Unfortunately, its’ funding is controlled by ideological idiots who were specifically chosen, funded and sent to congress to do one thing, cut taxes for their rich donors. The Krook brothers could care less about anything other than their corporate welfare and making sure that someone else pays their benefits. It is NASA’s responsibility to keep America excited. They should have already landed a robot on every planet in our solar system. They should have already returned a robot from every planet in our solar system. NASA is more than the launch system for spy satellites for defense and intelligence. NASA would have a much easier time growing their funding if they could stage a national tour of space rocks from every planet in our solar system. The innovations that would result from the problem solving to achieve this goal would keep America at the for front of global innovation. That’s what NASA is about. The wall street bail out cost America more than ten times all NASA funding ..for it’s entire history. Of course no wall street banker is going to jail.

Look, it has become a job security bureaucracy like much of the federal government. Anything useful that results is purely secondary. Similar to the public schools which exist for the administrators and teachers and are constantly gummed up with children in the mix.

Job Security Bureaucracy???? Myself along with countless others who were laid off – would beg to differ. Engineering and Discovery are not secondary or happen by “luck”…history proves this. You cannot routinely loft a 10 story structure on 7 million pounds of thrust with 7 astronauts and a cargo bay the size of a school bus and call it a Federal Bureaucracy…It’s opinions and attitudes like this that really lead us, nowhere. I recognize that many agencies have what you are referring too….but NASA cannot be counted as one. Look up the numbers – the Return on Investment….this is ridiculous…

Jason: you might not agree but you would be wrong. The “Job Security Bureaucracy” is exactly what almost any gov’t agency is, period. The fact that you lost yours only means that someone above you wasn’t a very good competitor in the budget games. They lost, it rolls downhill.

Jason… Were you civil service or private contractor or what? If you are, or were, civil service and were laid-off I’d be shocked. My entire aerospace career of 40+ years was in the private aerospace sector. I have always thought or heard, correct me if I’m wrong, that if you got a government paycheck you pretty much had a job for life unless you were a total airhead. I would like to hear your story about your civil service career. Thanks. — G-pa Dave

It’s because congressional members from Texas and Alabama and elsewhere are protecting their centers, which might see slight budget cuts if commercial crew is fully funded. So part of the money needed to help develop commercial rockets and space capsules in past budgets has been siphoned off for programs at various NASA centers.

And then there are the folks in Utah and Alabama who would see the cost-plus SLS/Constellation II development contracts turn into fixed-cost production contracts (or be cancelled entirely) if commercial space took over. The pork isn’t just in NASA jobs; even more of it is in the jobs at the associated contractors. And that is why Constellation and the SLS are doomed to fail (expensively) – because they don’t have the political pull to create something that costs less and uses fewer people than the thing that came before it did.

To be fair, this problem isn’t limited to NASA. Ask anyone in the Pentagon about closing a base or eliminating a weapon system.

Interestingly, this nicely illustrates the nature of relationships; when you plot them they take the form of some hellish shifting Venn diagram. In the context of relationships within the US, the spread of NASA centers reflects the way we think of fellow Americans. Consider the southern animosity toward the northeast (and vice versa) – how many people continue to bray about New York getting a Shuttle? How many people did we see lambaste the northeast for its concern over Hurricane Sandy? Ask Texans about California and you’ll hear all about lazy socialist liberals (with a dose of irony as they complain on Facebook while hailing SpaceX as a model of efficiency). Ask other states to describe the south and you’ll get a portrait of an inbred gun-toting redneck.

But when you change the context to the international arena (i.e. should we write a large check to Russia for launch services?) suddenly everyone becomes a flag waving American patriot, complete with chants of, “United we stand!”

There is a really good psychology lesson in there somewhere; unfortunately it will be lost as long as the scientific discussion is framed in such simplistic nationalistic terms.

For all federal agencies, it should always be about accomplishing something. You see jobs protection arguments raised frequently about defense spending, less dramatically for other agencies. What needs to be done? What’s needed to accomplish that? Those are the two critical questions.

So cutting to the chase here what states would benifit and which would lose and by how much if Congress were to agree to fully fund the president’s budget request for $821 million for commercial crew flights?

I fundamentally disagree. I think the military has a fairly large budget, and the much smaller amounts spent on civilian science represent money well spent. I am not scientist, and I care deeply about the nature of Mars and the universe around us. Curiosity about the natural world, and the brains to do something about it, is one of the defining hallmarks of humanity.

I wonder if any part of our government can do anything big any more. I wonder if some emergency required that we return astronauts to the moon in 8 years, if they could do it, like they did FIFTY years ago in the 1960s. I doubt it.

Middle management at JPL-NASA is earning over $265,000/yr. WHY? Only 2% of the entire country earns over $250,000 per year. There is nothing to justify giving NASA employees that amount of salary. It boils down to a complete lack of accountability to taxpayers for spending their dollars. I would defy anyone at NASA who earns over $150,000 to go to todays workplace and receive a job offer earning their NASA salary plus their outrageous benefits.

Many, many of the NASA-JPL employees earning $265,000 don’t even have advanced science degree’s. Aside from their salaries, there is no limit to their outrageous benefits, i.e., JPL contributes 7-9% towards their 403B’s, gives them free equipment (cell phones, laptops, i-pads, etc) which they use for personal business and then have replaced every other year.

NASA has a huge problem…..they have to spend this years budget so that that the next years budget isn’t cut. That explains how their salaries and benefits have become so out of control and not commensurate with todays workplace reality. Unlike the free market which self regulates salaries and benefits to match current market reality, JPL-NASA rarely lays off, employees pay little towards their own medical, JPL funds employee retirement plans in greater %’s than the employee contributions, it’s probably the last government bastion overwhelming ran by old, white men that never have to retire. Oh heck….their children receive free college tuition up to Cal Tech tuition while these people are earning over $265,000 all on taxpayers dollars.

It’s past time to hold NASA accountable for their never ending cost overruns. We face massive deficits and huge layoffs, the money would be better spent on public education, social security, job creation, housing subsidies, medical research, our military, etc.

NASA should not stand for Need Another Salary Augmentation. All missions should be outsourced to private industry so that there is cost accountability.

Re: Grandp Dave and lil ol me – you are both correct. I was a member of a major contractor to NASA. I provided videoconferencing services and actually created a process to demonstrate the viability of saving money and becoming more streamlined as a company. I wanted to demonstrate how flexible a gvt. contractor could be by enabling technology to be used as a process to cut the bottom line. Fortunately, I saw the writing on the wall long ago when my state-of-the-art video room sat empty and the private jet kept flying. Now, the building is shuttered and most of us are gone. Maybe, just maybe – they should have listened to the “little guy”!

Thanks for your clarification. I too came out of retirement in 2007 to work on what I thought was going to be the follow on to the Space Shuttle. I accepted a full time position with a private aerospace corporation providing engineering support to MSFC in Huntsville, AL. Worked side-by-side with civil servants. After Obama was elected the writing was on the wall. So folks joined the government payrolls. But when Constellation was cancelled in 2010, there was mass RIF-ing of the private support sector which was, and still is, the governments buffer. I know of no civil servants who was RIF-ed, it would have been against the federal law.

If I had it to do over, starting in the early 1960s, I would still go the private sector. I do not like big government. The bigger they are the worst it is. — Gpa Dave

If the American public wanted it to be more about jobs they’d tell Congress who would then move to make it something else. To the people that work at the NASA centers it is, has been, and always will be more than about jobs. To everybody else, not so much. Until and unless every single American tax payer sees not just the benefit but the *necessity* of space exploration then Congress will continue to play the dangerous balancing game of make work in an effort to keep our nation’s technological capability from draining. The whole program is treading water.